Thoughts about "my tribe"

One of the most heartbreaking things I can think of is when horrendous sin is uncovered in my church, or in my church movement--which I define broadly as baptistic and Bible- believing, a la GARB or the best of the Evangelical Free churches.  Back in Colorado, I knew of a pastor's suicide, and a man I knew reasonably well from my own church was convicted of murder. 

More recently, a report came out from GRACE  about sexual assault at BJU, and one of the scarier things is that the victims were to a degree blamed.  This has also been seen in other fundamental institutions--one sad case involves, directly or indirectly, at least three churches, a school, and at least three Bible colleges.

Not exactly part of a good Gospel presentation, to put it mildly.  What is up with this?

Part of the issue is probably what we see elsewhere; "closing ranks" to protect an institution and choosing the easiest target--the victim--to make the problem go away.  But the GRACE report, and other reports, allege more.  Specifically, much counseling seems to blame the victim, even to the point of asking a victim whether she enjoyed forcible rape.  Why is this?

One hint can be found in advice commonly given on the topic of modesty; Ladies, please don't lead men astray with your clothing choices.  Notice something missing there?  Yup, the man's responsibility.  In its extremes, it can become burqa theology.

But it's justified by Proverbs 5-7, right?  Well, no.  Read closely; the woman is doing many things, not just dressing like a harlot, to get "customers."  Moreover, the father's instruction presumes that the son is sinning if he "hires" her.  No matter how hard she tries, the man is still a moral agent.  And, quite frankly, I'm pretty sure all those immodestly dressed women I see out there are not trying to seduce me personally. 

So it seems to me that we need to come up with a new way of recommending personal modesty that (a) reflects the reality of seduction and mixed messages, but (b) does not suggest that sexual assault is caused by the victim.  I'm going to suggest, again, Leviticus 18's use of "uncover nakedness" as a picture of unlawful sexual relationships.   Combined with Proverbs 5-7, we may infer this:

 If we reveal the contours of our private areas--hips, bust, upper thigh--whether it be direct line of sight or by tightness of clothing--we may suggest that we are available for an unlawful sexual relationship. 

Closer, but still needs some tweaking.  Suggestions?

Yet another reason to homeschool

After finding feces on the school gym floor, teachers and administrators force two dozen elementary school students to drop their trousers.   Apart from the blatant invasion of privacy and humiliation of these kids, exactly what were they trying to find?  It's not as though "racing stripes" aren't commonly found on the underwear of flatulent young skulls full of much, after all.  Teachers yet again proving that yes, the college of education does have the lowest SAT and ACT scores in most colleges and universities, I guess.

Speaking of which, I'm very grateful this morning that my colonoscopy results came back as "come back in three years."  And if you're considering whether you really ought to go in for yours and endure the unpleasant preparation, I can say unequivocally that it beats the tar out of a morphine drip.  Visit someone in hospice care for a few hours if you doubt this.

Finally, on the light side, I heard that there is a reason that many politicians have to get "virtual" colonoscopies.   They tried the standard procedure, but after a few cups of GoLytely or Moviprep, there was nothing left.  Come to think of it, we should require the real thing for politicians, shouldn't we?

Part of what we're up against.

Powerline, or perhaps the "Kool Aid Report", reported on President Obama's attempt to get India to commit to a "peak year" of greenhouse gas emissions.  Their point is mostly that the "Light Worker" failed miserably to get this concession, and that India is also taking action, for better or worse, against Greenpeace because of their actions in India.

I am not enough of an expert on the actions of environmental groups in India to comment on that last part, but it strikes me that there are multiple follies at work with the first part.  First of all, in a parliamentary system like India's or a republic like ours, committing to a peak emissions year is pure folly and nonsense.  The laws can change every month and will. 

More importantly, the very notion of a peak year for greenhouse gas emissions presumes government control over all facets of the economy.  First of all, that's explicitly un-Constitutional.   Second, it makes no consideration for the certainty of change, and third....we have some examples of what happens, environmentally speaking, when government controls the economy.  The Warsaw Pact nations were riddled with environmental disasters in the 1990s, and China is well known for some of the worst air quality worldwide.   It is utter folly to try the same method and expect different results.

Well, almost the point I'd make

Lori Alexander links an interesting list of things by a newlywed, and is mostly troubled by item #2; that the man has "learned" that since he's gotten married, he's usually wrong.  On the "marriage wars" theme, it strikes me that this is a variant of the old joke; If a husband says something in the forest, and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still wrong?  She probably has a point, although the man could simply be recognizing his sin in the light his wife casts. 

What bothers me more, however, from a Biblical point of view, are thoughts #3 and #5; that there will be a lot of movies and Bravo network in the house.  Now I'm a fan of old movies, where actors and actresses were able to convey romance without disrobing, but the inclusion of Bravo--home of "Real Housewives", featuring housewives so real they'll melt if they get close to a fire--suggests that the fare being watched is not always what you'd want your kids to see.

And so I am reminded of something my wife and I learned in marriage counseling; that certain literature and film acts for women the same way that porn does for men, setting the expectation that no matter what one's own character or behavior, one will attract a rich, handsome person who will be at home at six every day and.....you know the rest.  It is a prescription for dissatisfaction, covetousness, and even adultery--the ludicrous becomes plausible in the same way it does for men with pornography.

And so the man whose wife is involved with this--or romance novels, or whose daughters have gotten hooked on horse romances--needs to step forward and fulfill his Ephesians 5 & 6 responsibilities to wash his wife in the Word.  That, along with not "lording it over" people, is a lot of what servant leadership is all about.

Solving problems vs. fishing for votes

There is plenty to dislike in President Soetoro's "State of the Union" speech, but probably the biggest obnoxious thing in it is his plan to make community college "free".  We of course start our criticism with the TANSTAAFL principle; there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Yes, community college costs, and the only question we have about the matter is who is paying. 

And who is paying?  Well, of course, people who are wise enough to pay for their own education--Obama desires a tax on 529 plans to pay for it.  In other words, he's proposing that the government break a promise not to tax the interest on these plans, hurt the "ants" who saved for the future, and all to bless the "grasshoppers" who did not.  It's a nasty low blow if it gets passed, to put it mildly.

And what is the benefit?  Well, the graduation rate from community colleges is an abysmal 20% or less, and anyone who's been in college knows what happens with most students who do not have skin in the game--study is an afterthought at best.   For example, Pell Grant recipients have a 40% graduation rate, well below the national average.   That's what comes when the government pays your tuition without regard to your ability to get a degree.

So our supposed "benefit" is more students spending years in community college instead of learning a trade--more or less, a net loss of billions of dollars in tuition costs, plus a net loss of tens of thousands of young people in the work force learning valid trades. 

However, as Dear Leader knows well, it buys votes from those who think they are being helped, no matter what the truth of the matter is. 

Potemkin SOTU

Apparently, not only are the policies President Obama has proposed economic make believe, so is the story he presented.  The family he presented as representative of common Americans is....

.....one where the wife has been a Democratic operative.   And it's not the first time he's used her as a speech prop, either.  Seems like except for the golf course, vacations in Hawaii, and dinners at clubs where it costs a half million bucks to join, the President doesn't get out much.

Not that this will stop the media from acting as if Mr. Obama is a "man of the people", of course.

Sending the folk song army....

....is our Dear Leader, who apparently chose to send crack infantryman James Taylor to France to play "You've got a Friend" to atone for Mr. Obama's failure to send someone of significance to a rally in support of free speech after the "Charlie Hebdo" atrocity.  Now part of me wonders why Taylor needs to stare at his guitar to play a song he's been playing for nearly 44 years, but another part of me sees a parallel in another singer popular in the hippie era.

Yes, Dear Leader is taking diplomatic tips from Tom Lehrer, regrettably.  But enjoy.

Is "disparate impact" really a problem?

Powerline discusses an important--maybe--case before the Supreme Court where the Court is being asked to establish whether the criteria of "disparate impact" applies to housing.   They define it as when a policy excludes or injures a group without a legitimate interest, and give the examples of school disciplinary standards or employment standards (say for police or firefighting work) as examples where this standard has done harm.

But that said, any parent can tell you that relaxing disciplinary standards in school is guaranteed to cause problems where good students aren't allowed to learn.  Relaxing standards for police or firefighting work guarantees that crimes do not get solved and fires don't get put out readily. 

In other words, I'm at a loss to think of cases where the disparate impact criteria are met--you will find plenty of places where one minority is harmed, but not too many of them are cases where there is no legitimate reason to do so. 

So what's the problem, then?  The problem, as far as I can tell, lies in attorneys general (state and federal level) who use the tool to intimidate school districts, police departments, and the like into doing their will.  It is a legal blackmail tool. 

And so if it's happening in your area, there are two things to be done.  One can either repeal disparate impact laws, or alternatively simply rein in the attorneys general who mis-use it and encourage the victims to point out that yes, there is a very real reason for the policies in question.

Criminy

I had wanted to give the annual "Barack Obama knowledge of the Constitution Award" to Kirby Delauter for his impressive lack of devotion to the 1st Amendment, but now comes some serious competition.  Houston mayor Annise Parker has followed up on trying to subpoena sermons (another impressive 1st Amendment violation) by an impressive sixth Amendment violation; trying to unilaterally impose a bench trial in a case trying the city for wrongly invalidating petitions.  Which is, of course, another egregious 1st Amendment violation.

The question here is whether Mayor Parker leaves office due to a Texas attorney general investigation, or whether she takes a top post at the Department of Justice first.  She would be a worthy recipient of the BOKOTC award, but the year is young.

Now there's an idea

A high school principal from Alabama has requested that cans of food be brought to school to help repel intruders--keep it around, throw the can of Campbell's soup at the disgruntled student or jihadi, I guess. 

Call me weird, or perhaps a bit politically mistaken, but somehow I'm thinking of a better alternative than Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup. 

In honor of Kirby Delauter, foolish politician

Powerline (and others) detail a fascinating exchange between a thin-skinned and Constitutionally ignorant county commissioner of Frederick, Maryland decided that journalists needed his permission to mention his name in unfavorable terms, and even threatened legal action if the journalist continued in doing so.

Kirby, if you're reading this, bring it on, but enjoy when the judge throws out your case on obscure grounds called the "First Amendment to the United States Constitution."  You've won the Boulangerie's first annual "Barack Obama knowledge of the Constitution Award", started in honor of the President's ignorance of Marbury vs. Madison and the 13th Amendment, among other issues.

I do not think....

.....that the phrase "white privilege" means what Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal thinks it means.  The Senatress recently tweeted that she would "remember...and use" examples of people using their "white privilege".

Now apart from whether I believe in the idea of white privilege at all--I am thinking that my privilege lies not in the color of my skin, but rather in the fact that my home life featured a lot of "books" and parents who cared enough about me to keep me in certain situations and out of others--but it's worth noting that the very premiss of "white privilege" is that the mere fact of caucasian ancestors conveys certain advantages in life, and therefore whites cannot, by definition, avoid using white privilege.

And so the person who says that she will use "white privilege" against those who use it is really saying that she is going to discriminate against white people.  I guess that's one's right, or "black privilege", when one is a politically favored civil rights activist.

Hoping and praying that we can discard both concepts, though, in favor of the real things that differentiate us.